Falklands War and AA weapons

We had a very interesting discussion recently about Falklands Air Kills. I would like to introduce a related topic.

Just as the Falklands War was ending in June 1982 , “Flight International” published a hard-hitting editorial (entitled “There’s something wrong with our bloody ships” ) in which they claimed that most of the British shipping losses in the conflict could have been avoided if all our warships had been fitted with automatic close-in gun systems such as the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx or the 30mm Goalkeeper.

But just how effective would such weapons have been against aircraft? Designed as they are to protect ships on an open sea they would have probably prevented the loss of “HMS Sheffield” and “HMS Coventry”.

Would they have been effective in Falkland Sound ,so close to land where there would have been much clutter on radar ? And would heavy calibre rounds which missed not been a hazard to our own ships and troops?

Prior to the San Carlos landings it was confidently expected that Seawolf armed ships would prove highly effective in Falkland Sound . In fact Seawolf would not work in radar – guided mode in Falkland Sound due to clutter and the one or two kills achieved by the system in this location required TV camera guided mode.

Also I believe that Phalanx has never been used successfully in anger. In the 1991 Gulf War there was an incident in which “HMS Gloucester” downed an Iraqi Silkworm (?) missile with Sea Dart. It was reported that a US vessel had tried to shoot down the missile with Phalanx and failed . Can anyone confirm this?

I would be interested to hear your expert views on these points.

Colin